M. L. Bhatt. J. - (1.) THIS petition has to succeed on a very short point.
(2.) AN enquiry is said to have been initiated against the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted on 17-1-1990. The petitioner is said to have filed an appeal against the said order to the concerned Secretary. The said appeal was dismissed on 31-7 1991 Both these orders are challenged. The petitioner's services are said to have been terminated on the basis of the enquiry report. It is an admitted case of the parties that the report of the enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner and he could not, therefore, make his representation nor was any show cause notice given to the petitioner before proposing the penalty sought to be imposed The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of termination stands vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of law of which enjoins upon the other side to furnish enquiry report to the petitioner before they decide to take action against him. Reliance is placed on the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. AIR 1991 SC 471, as also reported in 1991 (1) UP LB EC 456. The Supreme Court has stated the effect of non-supply of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent officer in the following words ; "Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to (he delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the enquiry in Article 311 (2) has been abolished by amendment the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the enquiry officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the enquiry officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a cony of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this court making rules of natural justice applicable to such enquiry are not affected by the 42nd Amendment We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The 42nd Amendment has not brought about any charge in this petition." On the basis of the conclusion that no enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed and the desciplinary action taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order dated 17-1-1990, as affirmed in appeal on 31-7-1990, is set aside. It is, however, clarified that this order may not preclude the disciplinary authority from revising the proceeding and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the enquiry report in case dismissal or removal was the proposed punishment. There will be no order as to costs.;